Home | Site Map | Site Stats | Contact Us

Welcome to the Dendrome Project!

Icon 05 TreeGenes

Sequence Resources

Summary by Genus

Colleague Directory

Colleagues Organizations

Species Database

Forest Trees

Literature Database

Search Literature

Transcriptome Database

Search Transcriptome Transcriptome Summary

Protein Database

Search Proteins Protein Summary

Expression Studies

Search Expression Expr. Studies Summary

DiversiTree

Genotype, Phenotype and Sequence CartograTree

Comparative Mapping Database

Published Maps Maps Recently Submitted Search Cmap

Genome Transcriptome Browser

GBrowse Portal

Submissions

Submit to TreeGenes

Icon 03 Updates

PineRefSeq project releases assembly (v0.8) of the Pinus teada genome | CartograTree (v2.0.0), a map interface that works with DiversiTree to bring together genomics, ecological, and trait data is now live! | SMarTForests Project releases the first assembly (v1.0) of the Picea glauca genome |

|


Literature Detail

Nielsen, Julie L; Rood, Stewart B.; Pearce, David W.; Letts, Matthew G; Jiskoot, Hester

STREAMSIDE TREES: RESPONSES OF MALE, FEMALE AND HYBRID COTTONWOODS TO FLOODING.

Cottonwoods, riparian poplars, are dioecious and prior studies have indicated that female poplars and willows can be more abundant than males in low-elevation zones, which are occasionally flooded. We investigated the response to flooding of clonal saplings of 12 male and 9 female narrowleaf cottonwoods (Populus angustifolia) grown for 15 weeks in a greenhouse, along with three females of a co-occurring native hybrid (Populus × jackii = Populus deltoides × Populus balsamifera). Three water-level treatments were provided, with substrate inundation as the flood treatment. In the non-flooded condition, the hybrids produced about four-fold more dry weight (DW) than the narrowleaf cottonwoods (P < 0.01). In both cottonwood taxa, flooding reduced stem height and DW, root and leaf area and weight, leaf chlorophyll and stomatal conductance (all P < 0.01). Inundation increased the foliar carbon-to-nitrogen ratio (+11%; P < 0.05) but did not significantly alter leaf water potential (mean -1.5 MPa), or foliar δ(13)C, which was lower in P. angustifolia (-32.8‰) than P. × jackii (-31.5‰; P < 0.05). Water level influenced the root distribution as roots were sparse in the saturated substrate and abundant in the capillary fringe above. The male and female P. angustifolia genotypes grew similarly with the favorable water levels, but the males tended to be more inhibited by flooding. Sapling DW of males was reduced by 56% compared with a 44% reduction for females (P = 0.1), and there were similar lower reductions for leaf, stem and root DW in females. These results demonstrate the inundation response of floodplain trees and suggest relative flood tolerance as: P. angustifolia female > P. angustifolia male > P. × jackii female. This indicates that narrowleaf cottonwoods are relatively flood tolerant and suggests that females are more flood tolerant than males. We propose the concept of 'strategic positioning', whereby the seed-producing females could be better adapted to naturally flooded, low-elevation streamside zones where seedling recruitment generally occurs.

Pubmed ID: 21081653

Keywords: Larix chinensisPLarix chinensisHLarix chinensisYLarix chinensisSLarix chinensisILarix chinensisOLarix chinensisLLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisGLarix chinensisYLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisGLarix chinensisELarix chinensisNLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisTLarix chinensisYLarix chinensisPLarix chinensisELarix chinensis, Larix chinensisELarix chinensisCLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisSLarix chinensisYLarix chinensisSLarix chinensisTLarix chinensisELarix chinensisMLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisPLarix chinensisLLarix chinensisALarix chinensisNLarix chinensisTLarix chinensis Larix chinensisSLarix chinensisTLarix chinensisELarix chinensisMLarix chinensisSLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisGLarix chinensisRLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisWLarix chinensisTLarix chinensisHLarix chinensis Larix chinensis&Larix chinensis Larix chinensisDLarix chinensisELarix chinensisVLarix chinensisELarix chinensisLLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisPLarix chinensisMLarix chinensisELarix chinensisNLarix chinensisTLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisPLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisPLarix chinensisULarix chinensisLLarix chinensisULarix chinensisSLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisPLarix chinensisLLarix chinensisALarix chinensisNLarix chinensisTLarix chinensis Larix chinensisRLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisTLarix chinensisSLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisGLarix chinensisELarix chinensisNLarix chinensisELarix chinensisTLarix chinensisILarix chinensisCLarix chinensisSLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisHLarix chinensisYLarix chinensisBLarix chinensisRLarix chinensisILarix chinensisDLarix chinensisILarix chinensisZLarix chinensisALarix chinensisTLarix chinensisILarix chinensisOLarix chinensisNLarix chinensis,Larix chinensis Larix chinensisGLarix chinensisELarix chinensisNLarix chinensisELarix chinensisTLarix chinensisILarix chinensisCLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisPLarix chinensisLLarix chinensisALarix chinensisNLarix chinensisTLarix chinensis Larix chinensisLLarix chinensisELarix chinensisALarix chinensisVLarix chinensisELarix chinensisSLarix chinensis, Larix chinensisFLarix chinensisLLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisOLarix chinensisDLarix chinensisSLarix chinensis

Tree Physiology, 2010; Vol 30(12) : 1479 - 1488